Foreign exchange contravention proved by pronotes, foreign currency draft, and admission; penalty sustained

Execution of pronotes in favour of non-resident lenders, receipt of a foreign currency draft, and the appellant's own admission were treated as sufficient evidence of contravention of the foreign exchange restrictions on payments and dealings with non-residents. The plea of ignorance about the lenders' non-resident status was rejected because the surrounding documents and statement proved acknowledgment of the debt and receipt of funds. The materials were held adequate to establish the regulatory breach, and the penalty was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened section 9(1)(a) and section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether the penalty imposed required interference.

Analysis: The appellant's execution of pronotes in favour of the non-resident lenders, receipt of foreign currency draft, and the statement admitting the transaction established the debt acknowledgment and receipt of funds. These materials were sufficient to prove the regulatory contravention. The plea of ignorance of the lenders' non-resident status and the request for leniency were found unpersuasive in view of the evidence and the amount involved.

Conclusion: The contravention was proved and the penalty was not interfered with.

---